- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:24:15 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Mark Baker schrieb: >> If you can't guarantee that at least a core set of methods will work, >> the API is simply useless. > > I disagree. > > Common practice with HTTP is what declares what methods are in use at > any given time. As an API to HTTP - which provides portability, not > interoperability - XHR doesn't need to say anything about that. All > it really needs to say about methods in order to remain a good HTTP > API is "SHOULD support other methods", which we've said. Well. A *useful* thing to say would be *why* all methods should be supported. The answer being: don't implement by message name (except for HEAD), but based on the generic transmission rules, and particular optimizations that can be done based on whether the method is known to be safe and/or idempotent. > Anyhow, I think this issue is closed now, right? > > Mark. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 15:24:26 UTC